August 12, 2008

But grumpy old TPM says: "The latest McCain Web ad takes the 'Celeb' tag to a whole new low — it proclaims that 'Hot chicks dig Obama.'" Huh? The ad didn't "proclaim" "Hot chicks dig Obama." The ad showed that various fools love Obama — including some lunkhead who said "Hot chicks dig Obama" and some ditz who said "The aura around him is just really nice." If you think it's offensive to say "Hot chicks dig Obama," then you should do what the ad invites you to do: Discount the support for Obama and think for yourself.

Now, this is an interesting way to analyze things: Knowing what you know about the Hillary Clinton campaign and what was in the Mark Penn memos that are now available, look at what the candidate is doing and speculate about what is in the internal memos. Marshall says:

Only the deeply naive or the deliberately oblivious -- which regrettably includes the greater number of the people covering the campaign -- don't know the answer to that question.

In other words, you're stupid or willfully blind if you don't realize the McCain campaign is trying to resonate with racism. But let's imagine the Obama memos too. Let's not be deeply naive or deliberately oblivious.

There must be frank and embarrassing analysis of the opponent's weaknesses and the voters' biases in every political campaign. I want to speculate about this sort of thing, but let's be careful. If we don't have the memos, we don't really know what was said, and your speculation is only speculation, even if you are willing to sternly insist that only idiots fail to acknowledge that your interpretation must be true.

I realize that Josh Marshall didn't write the story but he certainly sets the humorless tone around TPM. A few years back he published a tribute of sorts to the father figure in his childhood. I couldn't help but think then that Marshall was somehow taking out his childhood on the world. Now it strikes me that Obama may try the same thing.

I would suggest that things are precarious for Obama. He got his scorecard unbalanced by over investing in one area and under investing in substance. Now he is going to have double invest in substance to try to get the scorecard balanced again.

But McCain is going to make Obama pay for every inch of ground Obama tries to walk in order to move from "Rock Star Swooner Dreamboat Lover-boy" to "Serious Politician with Gravitas."

And all McCain has to do is continue to feed the very fire that Obama started. It is all about how wonderful Obama is (in one aspect.) And the MSM looks silly trying to frown and hold out McCain’s adds as being from the ugly Republican attack machine. The ads are all about Obama’s draw, Obama’s charm, Obama’s hipness. They haven’t said a directly negative thing about him. They are just keeping the scorecard unbalanced.

I think it's funny. It's meant to be humorous. I loved the ad with Moses parting the seas more (I laughed out loud), but I like humor making a point. Everything political has to be drop dead serious.

I find it interesting that the MSM and dems refer to these ads as mudslinging. A whole article on it in last week's New York Magazine, "Will McCain's Mud Stick." Puhleese lighten up. If Obama's candidacy goes down hill it's not from a couple of ads poking fun at his hubris.

You have to keep in mind, TPM still thinks that the ad Bob Corker ran against Harold Ford was racism, and they explicitly reference their misperception in this post. These are people who have "racism" etched on the inside of their glasses and then wonder why they see it everywhere.

These are people who have "racism" etched on the inside of their glasses and then wonder why they see it everywhere.

Translation: these are the people who refuse to believe that there's no such thing as white ethnic resentment and thus there's no way Republican office-seekers could exploit it. Of course we know even if the resentment did exist there's no way a Republican office-seeker would ever seek to exploit it. Certainly not St. John McCain!

"You didn't think the "Call me, Harold" ad had anything to do with miscegenation?"

A curious word you use. Yes, I know what it means, I just have never heard anyone use it except for race-baiters. That includes the white racists that I know (all of whom are scarcely intelligent enough to have even been exposed to that word). As someone at whom the ad was targeted, the thought never entered my mind that it was about biracial relationships. Until the racists on the left "decoded" it for me.

Ha ha. So funny. Definitely McCain's best ad by far, he seriously outdoes himself every time! I can't wait to see the next ad where they say Obama is a celebrity. There haven't been enough of these types of ads. Thanks for posting every single one of these unique, hilarious ads, Ann.

Of course it has to be gay male pastry. The lesbian pastry wasn't so popular. They experimented with one called the "Man in the boat." They put a shrimp at the end of a cannoli. You know to welcome some of the new people into the neighborhood. It didn't go over so well.

You know what the McCain campaign should do next? They should put out an ad saying that Obama is famous for being famous, but he's not ready to lead. Then they should say that he will raise your taxes. Ha ha! That'll show 'em. I want people to feel stupid for supporting Obama, even if they never thought of him as a celebrity, just a respectable enough Democratic nominee. Make everyone feel dumb. And then tell them that their taxes will be going up, because everyone knows that during a time of war, everyone should get tax breaks. I love these ads and they make me laugh, thanks again for posting all of McCain's ads.

So would it be fair game if Obama cut an ad with all the toothless freaks in Appalachia who are voting for McCain because they don't like the darkies?

Sure it would. But it wouldn't work as well. I think more people would self-identify being caught up in Obama's cult of personality than they would with a bunch of hick racists. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Obama's ad would backfire.

I mean is he rushes it and scrunchs up his face and spit’s a lot, then you know he really isn’t into it and that’s no fun. Then he is just a phony who is doing it to get on your good side.

But if he takes his time and savours it and dips his tongue in there to taste it and slowly and sensually eats it, well then he is proably a guy who knows how to do it right and make most people happy.

You didn't think the "Call me, Harold" ad had anything to do with miscegenation? What was the policy message the Corker camp was trying to drive home with that one?

The message was "Harold Ford attends Playboy Mansion parties". Which, you know, he did. That's why the woman says "I met Harold at a PLAYBOY party!". All the leftie blogs ever quote is the follow-up line from the Playboy bunny ("Harold -- call me!"), which out of context does sound like it might be an appeal to miscegenation. When you know that the woman's meant to be a Playboy bunny Ford met at a party, the meaning is entirely different.

For pity's sake, use some common sense. Just how many white people do you think there are who both (a) would consider voting for a black liberal but (b) NOT vote for him if someone hints he sleeps with white women?

Now McCain spent a lot of time in Vietnam where they put fish sauce on everything, so he probably enjoys a fish taco now and then. (Within the sanctity of marriage table and all, to be sure he’s learned his lesson about outside snacks).

But I don't know about Obama. I mean he's younger and all so he definately has tried the fish taco once in a while, but will he stick with it to finish the whole thing or will he throw it under the bus when it isn't useful anymore.

There’s nothing worse then when you throw the fish taco under the bus.

Then there's a series of pieces showing how the Bush/McCain approach to Georgia helped foment fighting there. Bush pushed (over European objections) for Georgia to be admitted to NATO. They led Georgia to believe we'd be there for them if fighting broke out.

Meanwhile, McCain has a former lobbyist for Georgia on his payroll as a top adviser. Sounds like divided loyalties between America and Georgia in the McCain campaign. Plain and simple.

(And didn't McCain say he was getting all the lobbyists off of his campaign?)

As a conservative Christian male from the South--the key demographic for McCain's ads, in TPM's eyes--I can honestly say that neither this nor the celebrity ad made me think of miscegenation. Maybe I'm the exception, but I doubt it.

I do know that all the accusations of racism provide a nice secondary reason to vote against Obama, though. Who wants to spend the next four years listening to every critic of the president being accused of racism?

A fun game to play with a word processing program's thesaurus: type in an adjective and see how many synonym searches it takes to find a word that Obama's supporters would claim is a racial dog whistle. I wouldn't be shocked if some do that already.

Everybody knew Nixon was weird when he went on the orange diet and only ate food that was orange. Carrots. Cantaloupe. Pumpkin pie. That’s what turned the press against him, the food on the campaign plane.

The history of presidential campaign is rife with problems over the food that the candidates ate or drank. Grant was famously thought to be a drunk, and William Howard Taft a glutton who would devour a whole turkey or roast suckling pig at a sitting. And of course there was the time James Buchanan choked on a wiener.

As I'm sure you saw in my post, Doyle, I noted that I may in fact be the exception. I'd like to point out, however, that my lone reaction is exactly one more piece of evidence supporting my position than you have supporting yours.

I love fish tacos. If by fish tacos you mean fish tacos. You know. A taco shell filled with lettuce, cheese, peppers and delightfully fried fish. If you don't mean fish tacos when you say fish tacos, well then I'm not saying if I like them or not.

Say what you mean and mean whay you say.

I don't see any racism in the ad, by the way, but I'm not looking for any.

This is a blog-comment section. If I want to just react, including scoff, I will. I do indeed appreciate the difference between scoffing and writing an essay of argumentation. I don't choose to do the latter here, especially not anymore.

I think McCain's making fun of the whole rockstar meme, which has more to do with adolescence and youthful crushes than RACE, per se.

You may not agree with that view--in fact, I'm sure you don't--but it's a perfectly legitimate one.

So screw you.

(Also, figures you'd respond to THAT particular comment of mine, and not even bother to notice that I mentioned the Scheunemann issue as being a concerning one. And a much more serious one, I might add.

So now we're getting that "this video is no longer available," which I discovered when I went back to watch again to try and confirm my impression that there was A GUY in there talking about nearly crying about something be signed, or something like that. Assuming that my memory is correct, how EXACTLY does that fit into your race meme better than it does in my "adolescent crush on rockstar" theory?

I'm with Toby. So now every time someone comes up with an ad or commercial that shows Obama with someone white and female (a pretty good sized chunk of the population I would imagine) it's a Mandingo reference? Puleeze. Who wants to spend the next four years defending oneself against racism charges every time one utters a criticism of the president? Much easier to vote for the other guy (quietly, without telling the pollsters) and save on antacid purchases.

Wow. Or we can just keep criticizing McCain and you can cope with it. No laws needed. See, when people, even liberals, make fun of or disagree with someone else, they're not calling for speech laws. They're just practicing free speech, Pat.

Here's why: Obama has an extremely thin resume for a presidential candidate and has risen almost exclusively because of his rhetorical skills and charisma. (His own early ads played up his popularity, in fact.) The 'celebrity' angle highlights that even Obama's supporters don't have substantive reasons to back him. The "he has a nice aura" and "he has soft eyes" statements showcase the fluffiest reasons some of his supporters have for voting for Obama. The problem is that soft eyes and nice auras do not qualify one to hold the most powerful and important job in the world. McCain, with his military experience and years serving in congress is more qualified to be president.

You may disagree with the case being made, but it is legitimate (and not the least bit racist) for a candidate to argue that he is more qualified than his opponent .

A couple of other points: the women in these ads aren't making sexual comments. If McCain's people wanted to, they could send a cameraman to Obama rallies and ask women if they thought he was hot, had a nice body, is cute, etc. Surely they'd be able to find some ditzy white girl to say what a hunk Obama is, and then play it off as part of the celebrity angle.

Second, the ad also includes men gushing over Obama. If including women praising Obama is supposed to raise fears of miscegenation, what purpose does including men supposed to serve?

Gravitas test? Geez. I mean, say what you will about McCain. Everyone knows that his party's base has to grit their teeth to vote for him. But gravitas? He pretty much earned a permanent pass on that 35 years ago.

AlphaLiberal said... You know we should all be able to agree that a candidate for President should not give his ear over to a lobbyist for a foreign government.

Why would any candidate give an ear, let alone any other body part to a foreign government? Their body parts should stay right here in the good old USA! We need a law banning politicians from giving body parts to foreign governments. It’s treasonous.

From where I sit, you, and certainly Doyle, come over all the time with the motivation to scoff and belittle those with whom you don't agree--to say they're "in denial" etc. and imply (when you don't outright say it) that they're stupid, uninformed, evil, whatever, etc. Thus, I find it a little bit rich when you toss that out in my direction. And after hanging out here for, what, three years, I'm pretty much not inclined to ignore it anymore. You, and those like you (from both sides), have worn me down. I give up. You've won! Civility is for losers! I've started playing it your way, so no complaining on your part. Suck it up, baby.

Re the lawn comment: I mean it as a joke -- I knew an old guy who used to get mad when I was a kid beacuse we would play massive games of tag involving 30 kids and sometimes people ran across lawns not belonging to them.

No one is ready to be president, especially a senator - I don't care how long McCain has been a senator. To me, senator is the greatest job on the planet - 6 year terms, run a small office and yet not responsible for anything, get to hang out with people who want to feed you and take you to sporting events, have an expense account. The reason why McCain and Obama have gaffes when they go off the cuff is that senators have armies of aides, be they their staff or committee staff who master the details. They have whips and party leaders to tell them what to do. And, the power of incumbency combined with statewide races means the chance of you getting to boot is about 5%. Which is why I don't take a whole lot of stock in "experience" when McCain's only experience is that of a parliamentarian.

Obama has an extremely thin resume for a presidential candidate and has risen almost exclusively because of his rhetorical skills and charisma.

You might be surprised to know that most Obama supporters disagree with that characterization of why they support him.

For Obama supporters, the fact that George Bush can barely speak English wasn't the worst thing about him. He was substantively horrible as well, and of the two candidates only Obama is offering a corrective.

Criticizing? Might as well accuse him of being a pedophile, since there's as much reason to believe that as racist. You might note that there's no reason whatsoever to suspect him of pedophilia, but I'd note that he's obviously speaking in code.

Doyle and Alpha -- You seem to think you're arguing with Simon and Reader and Toby, when Trooper York knocked out your props with his first comment.

When you -- and Josh Marshall -- define everything as racist, you end up with nothing that actually sticks. You might want to reserve your cries of racism for actual racism. As it is you're arguing that the ad is racist because it shows something that isn't racist (white women admiring a black man) that some racist people will find offensive.

If your candidate can't handle being mocked, explaining why the humor is dastardly and underhanded won't help him. You simply end up sounding like an establishment pricks in every anti-establishment movie every made. Hint: in Animal House the irreverent louts were the ones who weren't bigots.

We have an election here where one candidate is promising to balance the budget in 5 years while the other promises to transform our energy economy in 10. One candidate goes on a ten cities in ten days sightseeing tour to learn foreign policy while the other crams economics textbooks to figure out where you put a decimal point.

When you -- and Josh Marshall -- define everything as racist, you end up with nothing that actually sticks.

I don't recall even defining the McCain ad as "racist", let alone everything.

Let me put it this way: I believe the ad was done with the full knowledge that the "hot chicks dig [Candidate X] but he wouldn't be a good president" is more politically damaging if Candidate X is black.

That's just the truth. If you want to bitch about that being the "race card," go ahead.

If your candidate can't handle being mocked, explaining why the humor is dastardly and underhanded won't help him.

Fortunately, he doesn't need help. He's winning, and the lead is going to get bigger when he thrashes the doddering old man (currently unable to crack 44%) in the debates.

Hint: in Animal House the irreverent louts were the ones who weren't bigots.

Rick Davis is like one of the guys from the Delta house? He really doesn't come across that way on TV.

I'd have thought Pamela Sue was well past her "sell by" date, Trooper, but the ad's persistence appears to indicate she can still rake in the dollars. (I was going to say that I see your point, but the ad is too full of curves to pretend ;-)

If we don't have the memos, we don't really know what was said, and your speculation is only speculation, even if you are willing to sternly insist that only idiots fail to acknowledge that your interpretation must be true.

Hmm. The fact is, Obama's weaknesses are his weaknesses, and polling is polling, assuming the methodology is sound. So the memos the Clinton campaign came up with are no different than the memos anyone would come up with, because they're based on Obama's weaknesses and the polling. McCain's camp likely has polling that says the same thing and Obama's weaknesses are what they are, so McCain's camp probably has similar memos. That isn't speculation. It's inductive reasoning.

Althouse, I still get "video unavailable" regarding the embed here at your blog. But when I just played it (from feed) on someone else's blog it works .... BUT it's different from the one you had embedded.

Specifically, the "Wayne's World" excerpt is gone. I wonder if the movies' rights holders objected or if the McCain camp wanted the modification.

My absolutely favorite thing this election year is watching the Doyle's, AlphaLiberal's, et al seek to tear back at McCain, because this season - more than any other in all of American history - their chosen (read "default")candidate is nothing but a whiff of air. They have absolutely no way of defending his credentials.

Barack Obama is the least qualified major party candidate to run for President in the entire history of the United States.

The expected thing is that the usual Lefty suspects would fling racism charges everywhere, forgetting it wasn't the Democratic primaries where everyone grovels in fear of having their shot at the all-powerful Democrat black vote alienated by spurious allegations. It's the general election, where substantial sectors of the population are sick of the race card being played.And in which morons like Bob Hebert plays right into voter disgust at overcharges of racism. We saw Hebert acting like an ill-informed moron for the 1000th time with no fear of losing his job, alleging that the "Celebrity" ad was not about media-created celebrities who have done nothing to merit being celebrities - but all about Mandingo and phallus symbols...Hebert saw the Washington Monument, and the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the ad, when it was all in Hebert's doltish head only..Neither image existed in the video. Just the Prussian victory column, which Hebert charges was deliberately added by McCain forces to the images from the "We Are the Hope and the Change!" Address to German worshippers. (Who are a people noted for their ability to love and follow a "rock star" orator.)

And only the 60s dinosaur types like Bob Hebert would manage to see a bright white marble stack of columns supporting a tower as a black phallus symbol.

Doyle - It's to do as much to exploit the worst instincts of stupid white people while still getting the stupid white people to think it's all in good fun.

But saying Reverend Wright and several dozen other bigoted black supremacist churches raking in money with their pews packed to the gills with hootin' and hollerin' dumb black racists? Why, Doyle and others would point out that just mentioning exploiting the instincts of the worst stupid black people while getting all the stupid black people to think it was all acthertic good fun to Dod Damn America???? Why just saying that - is "racist! racist! racist!"...

From Doyle:“Let me put it this way: I believe the ad was done with the full knowledge that the "hot chicks dig [Candidate X] but he wouldn't be a good president" is more politically damaging if Candidate X is black.

That's just the truth. If you want to bitch about that being the "race card," go ahead.“

Perhaps that is what you see because that is the way you think. Perhaps you think it is damaging because you hold such racist views and thus assume others think that way as well. - please recognize that not everyone sees the world with such a filter.

Folks are folks in my book. What matters to me is whether or not they are good and wise. Skin color don’t mean a dang thing.

Perhaps that is what you see because that is the way you think. Perhaps you think it is damaging because you hold such racist views and thus assume others think that way as well. - please recognize that not everyone sees the world with such a filter.

This response is really lame. "You're racist for calling out racism" is just lame. Doyle only asserted that the McCain camp is smart enough to know what it is doing. They have professional over there who do their job just as well as the people over at Clinton's camp did theirs. So the notion that this is accidental is rather ludicrous. Whether you want to affix the "racist" label to it is your own affair, really, but the fact is, it trades on fear and doubts about Others. Everyone can see that, campaigns actively do it on purpose, and they write memos about it. Let's not play stupid here.

I am curious, though, why Ann found the Obama celebrity ad dumb. I at first didn't believe it was actually an Obama ad, but when I viewed it again, I thought it was brilliantly crude. It looks like a movie trailer, which is genius, and is so over the top that it is hilarious. It also disseminates the information very effectively: McCain = oil, McCain = Bush, McCain = old, McCain = Hollywood. It seemed like satire of McCain's ad strategy. The point was to paint him as pathetic and desperate. Maybe I am giving them too much credit, but I think it works.

iam, I respond to arguments with logic, not scoffing and denial (and a sharp and cutting wit, sure, you're right).

Most arguments from conservatives here, Althouse included and especially, consist of denial and scoff (and a fair amount of bole in some cases, hi, Fen). Usually that's all they got and it communicates they can't back up their positions.

Actually, you know, he didn't. It was a Super Bowl party sponsored (maybe even co-sponsored) by Playboy. It wasn't at the mansion.

I didn't know it wasn't at the mansion, but that's not really the point. The point is, Ford attended a party sponsored by pornographers. Mind you, I consider that a reason to vote FOR the man, but Tennessee is probably the least porn-tolerant state in the union.

But like I said, keep up the phony accusations of racism. It only hurts Obama.

Doyle, we get it, you're outraged at the bigotry that you see in McCain, white people, and most Althouse commenters. Do you have any facts to back that up, or just outrage?

Why don't you tell us what percentage of black people versus white people should McCain use in his ads so they are not racist? If he uses all black, that sends a message, too, so help us out here. What would a non-racist ad look like?

Someone asked about the guys in the "Hot Chicks" ad. I reviewed the ad on this question. There are two, one adoring and one talking about "hot chicks." I think the first one is for cover. Versus 6-7 women, 4 adoring.

now, why is the term "hot chicks" important? Why didn't they show that Obama girl? She's hot.

The most effective ad Obama can run would be quotes and stories from the people in his own party and who worked with him that think he's completely nuts and not fit for office

Why would Obama want to run an ad like that? If there are people who have worked with him and think that Obama is completely nuts, wouldn't you think that he would want to keep it covered up. I mean....we, the voters, know that he is unfit for office and probably nuts as well, but wouldn't it be silly of Obama to point this out himself.

Or, could it be that you are too imprecise and sloppy in the use of your pronouns? :-) Sorry, couldn't help myself.

It was a typical negative political ad throwing out phrases that supposedly identified terrible facts about McCain. It wasn't creative as an ad. The only thing to do would be to go on about the accuracy of the phrases. I'm not FactCheck.com.

If you think it was a notable political/cultural artifact worthy of blogging here, explain why.

I can tell you that I genuinely looked at it, the way I look at 50 things a day, with an eye toward blogging it, and it didn't make the cut. I particularly wanted to get a pro-Obama ad, but it didn't meet my standard.

"So the memos the Clinton campaign came up with are no different than the memos anyone would come up with, because they're based on Obama's weaknesses and the polling. McCain's camp likely has polling that says the same thing and Obama's weaknesses are what they are, so McCain's camp probably has similar memos. That isn't speculation. It's inductive reasoning."

So if it's a no-brainer that the McCain people take the supposedly racist tack that the Clinton campaign did, then we can finally quit listening to half-wits insist that the Repubs are the party of racists any more than the Dems?

Based on some Obama supporters' reaction here, I'm gonna have to say the ad is obviously touching a nerve and must be somehow pretty effective.

I disagree. I don't think the target audience is Obama supporters, but rather the undecideds. How supporters react to it is pretty irrelevant. Does it get people who are undecided to change their mind? Answer that and you will know of the ad's effectiveness.

So if it's a no-brainer that the McCain people take the supposedly racist tack that the Clinton campaign did, then we can finally quit listening to half-wits insist that the Repubs are the party of racists any more than the Dems?

Where in this thread did I impute racism to the Republican Party or to the McCain campaign?

In fact, some of them have said as much: As long as attention is focused on race it's bad for BHO.

But they can't help themselves. It's a finely honed reflex, cultivated over a lifetime.

The O-man could destroy these ads by calling out his accomplishments. Simple as that. Run an ad showing all that he has done, and that the celebrity thing is just one of his qualifications, not the only one.

(No, I don't know if Mort has ever called anyone racist ever, I just thought the phrasing including "this thread" was funny.)

I have made multiple comments to this thread. None of them impute racism to the Republican Party or to McCain's campaign. The comment I replied to was a response to one of my comments. I was simply being specific and logical. I suppose accuracy is the new unintentional humor....

I believe that what you're asking is "does it get people who haven't yet made up their minds to begin moving away from/towards a candidate".

All McCain's team has to do between now and November is raise consistent, nagging doubt about the qualifications of Barack Obama. Just enough doubt. Because after all the partisanship and rancor and BDS of the last 8 years, the real world is starting to step in:

Russia, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan,China, India,the European Union,

and compared to all of those, Iraq is starting to look like a good thing.

When you pull the lever, and you have children/grandchildren, the world is scary and you think twice.

Barack Obama is the least qualified major party candidate running for President in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

Barack Obama is the least qualified major party candidate running for President in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

How can you say that with a straight face?

The first one I thought of was his fellow Illinoisan, and the last President of the United States to hail from there, Abraham Lincoln. Tell us how Lincoln's pre-election resume makes him more qualified than Obama.

"Where in this thread did I impute racism to the Republican Party or to the McCain campaign?"

A fair point, in spite of the widespread belief amongst others here that you are a race-baiter, a quality which may or may not be accurate WRT you. My comment was directed at anyone who is of the belief that this a Repub phenomenon. Only you know for certain whether you fit the bill.

Titled "Lincoln, the least-qualified president," this was originally published in 1999, when the same topic came up with regard to George W. Bush's qualifications. (Note: It's not primarily about Bush, however, but rather gives an overview historically with regard to presidents. The piece also does not question that Lincoln was the greatest president; at least, it points out that he tops most lists.)

[Lincoln] was the only president with no experience as a governor, senator, Cabinet member, general or vice president. Lincoln’s previous experience in public office consisted of one term in the U.S. House, several terms in the Illinois Legislature and a brief tenure as postmaster of New Salem, Ill.

I knew that the walking-on-eggshells aspect of this whole campaign was going to be agonizing when we debated the "good nig-ht" jammies ad.

So far, in these comments, I've seen slurs against seniors, whites, natives of Appalachia, women ("white sluts", I think they were called -- how the commenter knew they were sluts, I have no idea). All of these slurs have come from the left side of the Althouse commenter pool.

And these same commenters attack McCain for running an ad that shows several silly people stating absurd reasons for supporting Obama -- because a few of them happen to be white females. There are also men, and I believe I saw a black woman in there, too (but she was just a newscaster -- they probably didn't want to show a black supporter of Obama saying something stupid, like the government-created-AIDS theory, because, ironically enough, they knew they'd be accused of racism).

And all of this despite the fact that Obama's campaign was actually launched into the spotlight by: The Obama Girl "viral" ad (actually slickly produced and professionally launched). Before this ad, no one knew who he was or gave him a chance. Afterward, he was the leader. And it was an ad in which a young white girl goes on and on about her "crush" for Obama.

This hypocrisy, double-standard bullshit does not fly out here in the sticks in Northwest Ohio. And that's what's going to cost Obama this election. We don't want to be hectored for the next four years, scolded for being racists, when (believe it or not, Doyle, Alpha, et al), it couldn't be farther from the truth.

from Mortimer Brezny:"This response is really lame. "You're racist for calling out racism" is just lame."

I dunno - it is a bit more complicated than that. The assumption that acts by others are racially motivated, even when they are not, reveals a prejudicial mindset -one that assumes guilt and evil intentions automatically. Perhaps that isn't racism, but it sure stinks like it.

Tossing the race card about in such a cavalier manner, as Dems have, only serves to define racism down. If people make too many obviously false charges then no one will take any charges of racism seriously. It will be seen simply a rhetorical device of little value used in an attempt to dismiss one's opponents.

Sadly, such dishonest and irresponsible use of the charge will give aid and comfort to any real racists as they will then be able to claim they were falsely accused... just as others were before them.

Host with the Most: I'm not taking a position either way on the issue ... but the discussion made me think of the article I linked.

I think the cyclical pattern the author spoke of is interesting and at least worth thinking about (which is probably why the piece had stayed in my mind in one of the accessible areas of memory).

[Unlike, say, my ATM pin number, the same one I've had since 1995, but which has apparently slipped into an inaccessible area of my memory after not using it for a mere six weeks, as I just found out this evening, 1000 miles away from the nearest branch of my bank.

As a businessman, Lincoln was a failure. He went bankrupt, after all. He served one term in the US House of Representatives, after serving four terms in the Illinois General Assembly, a part-time job lasting only couple of months every two years. As you say, Lincoln did serve in the military. He was elected a captain in his first enlistment which lasted about 30 days, serving as a private in his second (which lasted about 19 days) and third enlistment (which lasted about 20 days).

While I happen to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a genuine "giant of human history," I don't find it necessary to pretend his qualifications for the office of President of the United States were remarkable.

"Where in this thread did I impute racism to the Republican Party or to the McCain campaign?"

A fair point, in spite of the widespread belief amongst others here that you are a race-baiter, a quality which may or may not be accurate WRT you. My comment was directed at anyone who is of the belief that this a Repub phenomenon.

Well, it was in response to my comment, which in no way implies that racism is limited to persons who register Republican or that racism is at play in the McCain campaign. So I defended my comment. Because people here play the race card by mischaracterizing the substance of my comments as of racial import, even when I make comments that are totally unrelated to race, as I did in this thread. People have false perceptions, and playing the race card, as many of the McCain supporters here tend to do, only exacerbates miscommunication premised on it. I had to clarify the record.

He served one term in the US House of Representatives, after serving four terms in the Illinois General Assembly, a part-time job lasting only couple of months every two years.

As it should be. This is our problem now....these career slick professional politicians who have been feeding out of the public trough for their entire adult lives. People who have never held a real job or had to understand how businesses work....yes, even bankrupt and failed businesses. Our politicians are as useless in the real world as tits on a boar.

I don't particularly care for him but Romney is probably the most qualified person in the pack since he has experience in running businesses, running a State and as a Mormon doesn't ever screw around on his wife. :-)

Tell us how Lincoln's pre-election resume makes him more qualified than Obama.

His skill as an organizer and political strategist for the newly-formed Republican Party and as a spokesman for the anti-slavery movement established that he had excellent leadership and organizational skills. Why do you think they picked him as their Presidential candidate? The man was ugly, uncharismatic, not terribly well-off and unrelated to any powerful family; they chose him anyway, because what he DID have was proven leadership ability.

- as a practicing attorney,Lincoln was involved in more than 4,500 cases and participated in over 100 cases before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Let's see, military experience, business experience, successful law practice for 20+ years. Hmmmm.

Barack Obama retains the title as the least qualified major party candidate for President in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the United States.

Pretty much. Those that insist that their Black Messiah is more qualified than Lincoln ignore those points. And I would add that Lincoln:

1. Was more than a trial lawyer. He had become the most successful railroad and shipping lawyer east of the Alleghenies by the 1850s and was in a position of executive leadership the whole time, inteacting with state legislatures, governors, and the US government to rationalize and legalize the new high tech transporation infrastructure that truly opened up agriculture and industry. He had a private railway car and his own telegraph operator. He turned down a stupendous sum (50K, full partner investment paid by other members) major East Coast banks, railroads offered him to bring his executive talent East.

2. Critics that point to Lincoln's short time in the militia ignore he was a member since his teens. Drilling, learning military skills and tactics. That he joked about only losing his blood to mosquitos in the Blackhawk War ignores that when his community leaders activated the militia and named Lincoln captain they were making a life or death level consequence decision...that Lincoln had the leadership and abilities to best protect their asses.Something of more consequence than elite students at Harvard Law naming Law Review Editor the affable guy who never wrote any articles as a good compromise between factions that did put their names to scholarly articles..100 cases before the state Supreme Court compared to Obama's 0.

3. Lincoln was also an important regional leader and founder of a new Party. In the accepted style of politics at the time, Lincoln was one of the leaders in the "smoke-filled" room selecting other candidates.

4. Lincoln can add other substantive things that Obama lacks in his bio. Self-educated, a remorselessly hard worker. State wrestling champ back when wrestling was a major sport. Mississippi river boatman and the only President except Hoover with a significant engineering patent (a ballasting system).

It's disturbing to me that even after so many months of campaigning, Obama remains a cipher. Never published while at Harvard or while teaching law, never sponsored any legislation in Illinois or Washington, voted "present" so many more times than is typical. It's hard to draw any conclusions from either his books or how he has conducted his life, either. He always comes off as saying or doing what he thinks should be said or done, whether or not there's any conviction behind the words or actions.

It seems as if he has spent his life avoiding controversy, going along to get along. That's not leadership.

DBQ said:This is our problem now....these career slick professional politicians who have been feeding out of the public trough for their entire adult lives. People who have never held a real job or had to understand how businesses work....yes, even bankrupt and failed businesses. Our politicians are as useless in the real world as tits on a boar.

Precisely. We really need to get back to the days of the citizen-legislator. Term limits for them and for the bureaucrats as well, and nobody's first job can be in government; they have to first have experience as a member of the productive class.

And for those whose terms in the bureaucracy (I'd say no more than 10-12 years) have ended but show no discernible talent? It's back to school for you, or maybe to McDonald's (or a similar place where people are paid not to think).